This morning I phoned the Human rights commission to see some assistance to the lack of observance of my rights to Justice.

The web site states

Right to justice

If your rights may be affected by a decision of a tribunal or public authority you have the right to

a fair hearing by an unbiased decision-maker

apply for judicial review of that decision.

You have the right to bring civil proceedings against, and defend civil proceedings brought by the Crown in the same way as civil proceedings between individuals

I am now somewhat confused as in speaking with Neil I was told that the right to justice means that I have access to a lawyer. This somehow falls short of the standard set in the bill of rights.

A brief summary is that 4 ½ years ago I raised questions of public concern to activities which the United Nations describes as a corrupt practice.

To conceal the practice and to silence me legal action was taken .

Part of that legal action was a defamation claim all other claims were withdrawn

The court burdened me with some $19,000 cost before any evidence was heard and as I had no independent access to funds ( I was a married woman with no independent cash reserves ) my defence was struck out

In the same directive the judge ordered the Plaintiffs to file a new statement of claim which never occurred. ( as attached Unless order )

After some time of inactivity the plaintiffs asked for the mater to be determined on Quantum on the original statement of claim.. there by ignoring the courts order.

Both parties were asked to submit an affidavit and I submitted an affidavit in accordance with section 30 of the defamation act

30 Misconduct of plaintiff in mitigation of damages

In any proceedings for defamation, the defendant may prove, in mitigation of damages, specific instances of misconduct by the plaintiff in order to establish that the plaintiff is a person whose reputation is generally bad in the aspect to which the proceedings relate.

At the hearing for quantum before judge Joyce, a hearing for which the scope had not been determined and which all parties believed to be a hearing for quantum only my affidavit in mitigation of damages was used against me as evidence of continued defamation.

During the hearing , the judge briefly touched on formal proof which was covered off my the plaintiff swearing to the best of his knowledge that the Statement of claim was true .No further comment was made to the substantive issue and no determination was ever made that the statements in the statement of claim were defamatory that is not the truth.

While the statement of claim was determined , without comment, to be true , my affidavit ( a statement of truth ) was used to prove continued defamation .How can you submit an affidavit showing the plaintiff is of bad character by saying nice things? Everything I said was backed up by evidence,

Every affidavit I have submitted to the court has been backed up with documentary evidence which the court has repeatedly dismissed and because of the bulk of this evidence ,now criticises me for.

While I was arbitrarily found guilty of defamation I had the right to submit an affidavit in mitigation of damages.

The court also has an interest in not allowing itself to be used for a corrupt purpose and not once did the court consider the consequences is what I was saying was the truth, it was more important to find me guilty than to question this corrupt use of public facilities and funds.

In essence the court is being complicit in the exercise of concealing corruption which is against its fundamental role of acting in the public interest .

Truth is never defamatory. IF my affidavit , a sworn statement , was defamatory then the statements mad in it must be lies and I should have been charged with perjury .

The fact that this evidence was accepted as truth and used against me brings up the question of entrapment brought about through legislation.

I have appealed and asked for a judicial review, which was opposed but no reasons given and I found myself in a position where we had to give a reason for the judicial review .

My lawyer filed papers which I had not seen and also which did not comply with my instructions to him.

I have now spent 4 ½ years $200,000 and have lost my marriage and have seen my family broken up. All in the quest for justice. Justice should not be this difficult to obtain and had I had the right to a fair trial it would have been over a long time ago. The plaintiff has been fighting me with appears tobe a bottomess pit of charitable funds which he has misappropriated to secure silence and a pay out for himself.. again this is true and I can show this through publicly available documents but we don’t care about corruption we condone it.

Had I been a fraudster I would have served my time and my costs would have been less, the chances are I would still have some in the pocket profit from my criminal behaviour. But I am in essences a whistleblower who has no right to protection and everyone including the court seems to stand by and condone the corrupt practices which I questioned.

All I ever wanted was for a hearing on the issues.. being that of the statement of claim and to be treated equally to the opposing party who were able to get away with ignoring the direction of Judge sharp while it was enforced against me.

I am disappointed that I was fobbed off by the human rights commission this morning, there are many who will be amazed by my story as it is the expectation that in New Zealand you can have a fair hearing by an unbiased decision-maker .

My application to the court for judicial review has been turned down as the judge relied upon case law to assume that facts pleaded in the statement of claim are true.

The case law which is relied upon was Attorney-General v Prince and Gardner [1998] 1 NZLR 262 (CA) at 267 which is inconsistent with the New Zealand bill of rights 27 (1) and cannot be appropriately used in a case of defamation where the onus of proof to prove truth . Guilty until proven innocent so how can you be found innocent when you have no defence.. Yet the court not once determined that what I said was true and when it accidently brought out the fact that what I had said was true the court resorted to making excused for mr Wells by saying that he got a head of himself.

It is therefore essential that a judicial review should be considered to see if this case law is applicable to defamation. And consider the following

1. That plaintiffs can succeed without production of any evidence

2. The strategic manoeuvrings which saw my defence struck out is equivalent to justice.

3. That one party can be held accountable to an order from the court while the other parties failure to comply is ignored.( filing a new statement of claim and proceeding on the old one.)

4. Allowing a party to claim defamation without showing why the statement was untrue

5. The maliciousness finding was made without any prior notice to the court as required by legislation .

6. That an affidavit in mitigation of damages can be used as evidence against the party producing it.

7. The obligations the court has to the public in ensuring that the court is not used to conceal corruption .. Ok I know no one cares about this. We are the least corrupt and long may the pretence last.

The human rights which we believe we have , ie the right to justice needs to be upheld and enforced . I therefore request that you assist in bringing the right to justice for me and all others like me to the attention of the judiciary and to the public bodies who continually slam the doors in the face of all those who have been the victims of corrupt practices.

24/11/2010

From: James Mendelssohn [mailto:JMendelssohn@msiglobal.org]Sent: Monday, 22 November 2010 11:18 p.m.To: ‘Grace Haden’Subject: RE: What are the expected ethical standards of you member companies.

Dear Ms Haden

Thank you for your recent e-mail. I was obviously concerned to read about the matters that you raised. As a global organisation of professional firms, we take any allegation made against any of our member firms extremely seriously. Indeed, the whole rationale of our organisation would be undermined if we could not rely on our members.

I have now had the opportunity to consider your e-mail carefully and to read the links provided. I would like to make two specific comments.

First, I think that it is extremely unfortunate that your blog contains speculative and inaccurate comments, particularly when you say that MSI Global Alliance does not appear to have a Code of Conduct. We have a document that has that exact title which is available on our website and is in the public domain. Your comments are therefore incorrect and, by implication, defamatory. I must ask you to remove or correct those comments on your blog immediately.

Secondly, I understand that you are pursuing a legal case against Peter Spring and Keegan Alexander, and that you have also raised the matter with the appropriate professional bodies. I believe that this is the correct course of action if you have a grievance, and I would be pleased to learn the final outcome of any such matters. I strongly believe that where our members are operating in a country with a developed and transparent legal system, it is better to allow due process to be followed in the local jurisdiction, rather than us trying to impose our own ‘judgement’ from afar. Therefore, until these matters are finally resolved, I believe that it is inappropriate for us to second guess the final decision.

I hope you understand our position.

Kind regards

James Mendelssohn

Chief Executive

MSI Global Alliance

my reply

Thank You Mr Mendelssohn

First of all I am not pursuing a legal case against Peter Spring and Keegan Alexander and I do not know where you got that notion from, I will be reporting the incident to the law society , which typically results in no action at all as New Zealand prefers to keep its least corrupt status by condoning such practices there by not acknowledging them as being corrupt.

As to your code of Conduct: the only document I found was one which prescribed the conduct amongst members as I stated in my blog I did not find a code of conduct “ which embraces ethical values outside their organisation”

Your Code-Conduct.pdf does not extend to or include the expected ethical values which are accepted and tolerated by your associated partners .

As an Anti corruption campaigner I look for the ethical values to be enshrined in the code of conduct and expect these to be upheld and enforced.

I do hope that you can bring this to the attention to the directorship of your organisation , You will find that many of your members will be in countries where the united nations convention against corruption has been ratified, however New Zealand is not one of those countries and our tolerance for corruption is somewhat higher than most of your members would accept , it is therefore important that your own rules set the standard as you do not wish to have your reputation tarnished by low ethical standards of others.

Ethics are like a chain it is as only as strong as the weakest link . You have control over that link you could cut it loose ,tidy it up or live knowing that it will be the link that sees the whole chain collapse.

The choice is yours I have brought it to your attention and I hope that you will take time to read the comments of Harrison J those are the comments of a justice about Mr Spring and Keegan Alexander – not mine.

If you would be so kind as to point me to a document in which you set out the expected ethical standards I will post the link on my blog to accurately reflect your expected standards .

In interest of transparency I will post both your reply and my response on my blog .

21/11/2010

I have just returned from a certified fraud examiners conference in Melbourne, one of the topics was that of ethics another very interesting one was on the foreign corrupt practices Act.

Both of these are issues which relate to the dealings I have had with an American national Terry Hay who has been charged with offences and sought refuge in Honolulu.

The FPCA does not only implicate him it also implicates the director of PACIFIC RIM INVESTMENTS LIMITED William Donald DRAKE 43-006 Nana Place, Honolulu. We will be making a complaint under the provisions of that act and will keep you posted as to the outcome.

Basically it all comes down to ethics.. The ethics or lack of, of one person, when condoned by management of a company ,reflects the ethical values of the whole company and when a company’s standards are condoned by organisations they are members of it also reflects on the entire organisation .

It is therefore a very good ethical bench mark to look at companies and organisations in terms of what conduct is condoned.

Keegan Alexander is a member of the world wide MSI global alliance . MSI does not appear to have a code of conduct which embraces ethical values outside their organisation but will be sure to raise that with them when we bring this matter to their attention.

Background

For the past four years peter spring has pursued me through he courts on behalf of his client Terry Hay on a number of claims. The purpose of these claims were initially to remove me from attempting to prove that a liquidator a director were fictitious.

The circumstances were that Hay was the owner of a company fresh prepared Limited which he had placed Lynne Pryor in control of as director and shareholder

The company took legal action against a former director Steven DE JONG

Perhaps the most significant of these is [5] where on page 2 the judge states “in my provisional view this is one of those unusual cases where the successful party should not be awarded costs, and that they should lie where they fall.”

His honour also refers to The unnecessary use of interlocutory procedures, and the failure to properlyassess the true value of its claim well before trial. Stating that a realistic appraisalwould have shown that this litigation was an uneconomic exercise for allparties; at the very least it should have been pursued on a restricted basis inthe District Court.
He states at point 3[4] This proceeding was issued in March 2004 and has seen an extraordinary amount of interlocutory activity, predominantly of FPL’s making, which would have been avoided if the company had undertaken an early evaluation of the arguable legal issues and its prospects of success.FPL has apparently pursued a scorched earth policy, forcing all parties to incur legal costs on interlocutories far in excess of what, by any objective measure, was the very modest amount of its claim, which was well within the District Court’s jurisdiction. It was not until the company instructed Messrs Clayton Luke and Richard Harrison less than one month before trial that its case was properly formulated. I shall return to this subject when discussing costs.

Fresh prepared Limited ( FPL) then failed to pay the lawyers who had represented them in the final proceedings ( they took over from SPRING)

Liquidation proceedings were commenced and the company was sold by Lynne Pryor to Sanjay Patel who on the eve of the liquidation proceedings placed the company in voluntary liquidation with Bahubhai Patel

During this time Terry Hay saw it fit to harass me by placing advertisements in a Chinese newspaper mandarin times and joined himself in harassment proceedings which had been initiated by Lynne Pryor against me.

The claim of harassment came when I tried to contact Sanjay Patel and did the usual of phoning the company and calling on his residential address and continually finding Lynne Pryor there and discovering that She had the same Po box number as the liquidator.

The interesting thing was that I had never met, spoken to or investigated Hay yet Peter Spring LL.B laid a charge of harassment against me on behalf of Hay and Pryor and secured a restraining order on fiction.

When the ministry of economic developments investigated , Hay and Pryor were charged . Hay skipped the country and took up residence in his native USA.

Pryor pleaded guilty to fraudulently running a business but not before taking further action against me for alleged contempt of court.

“The Judge went on to express cautionary views as to whether the undertaking the contempt proceedings relied on was still in force at the time of the alleged breach and raised whether the District Court had jurisdiction to make a finding of civil contempt. He invited counsel to consider the matter further.

Despite the opinions of judges Spring continued to pursue me through the court causing great stress to me and my family contributing to the end of my 24 year marriage.

I made a complaint to the law society based on the conduct of Spring in my case and the observations made by judges in the previous reported matters which reflected the same excessive use of interlocutory measures and scorched earth approach .

My complaint to the law society they have never investigated. They simply wrote to me and told me that I had other redress available to me. Strangely enough that letter was not received by me until after the appeal period.

I have since then asked Spring as to what was happening with the current proceedings, where I won the interlocutory at the high court and they now have to provide discovery to progress the case.

So far the proceedings have cost me $49,000 in court action and I sought to have this sum recovered and I wrote to him. Spring carefully twisted my letter to be an allegation against his company but most importantly stated on 2 November 2010

“As to the court proceedings itself, we are not in receipt of instructions in relation to the samefrom our clients at present”

I replied and asked him to contact his clients with regards to the proceedings and on the 4th November I received this reply

““We cannot put the same before them as we are no longer acting for them in this matter and have not for some time.”

I can only assume that two days is a long time in law . But to me it shows a certain lack of integrity ethics and accountability to the truth , had the clients ceased being clients would he not have said so two days earlier and ist it a proper procedure to withdraw from the case in court?

I don’t know what others think but in my opinion it is dirty pool and any one being a partner of Keegan Alexanderwho support this are all tarred with the same brush.

I just hope that the multinational organisation which Keegan Alexander are associated with do have a policy for ethics .

I will forward this post to MSI global alliance and see what their view is on lawyers supporting corrupt practices and taking court action to help conceal corruption and then coming up with mind challenging statements as to their involvement with clients.

Will keep you posted.

In the mean time I am contacting all those who have had the misfortune to have had Peter Spring on the opposition team in court, I have already met with a few of you please do let me know who you are and we can work together to ensure that Lawyers are accountable to the code of conduct.

02/11/2010

In early October I sent a letter to the minister of Police after I had received a ticket for a fabricated offence offence which I defended in court and for which the police later acknowledged they had no evidence for .

The Hon Judith Collins, Minister of Police, has asked me to acknowledge and thank you for your correspondence of 5 October 2010 concerning an infringement notice issued by police.

Your correspondence relates to matters that are the responsibility of the Commissioner of Police. I must point out that politicians cannot instruct Police in operational or employment matters. This is a long standing convention that was enshrined in law with the passing of the Policing Act 2008. It ensures that law enforcement and investigation by the Police remain free of any political influence or interference.

I have therefore referred your correspondence to the office of the Commissioner of Police for consideration.

Yours sincerely

******This was not even signed *****

Inspector Scott Spackman

Police Private Secretary

my reply 2/11/2010

Dear minister.

Several month ago I wrote to you about a ticket which I had received in the Waikato, I had asked the police a number of time to review the claim as I knew there was no evidence .

I defended it in court and won because surprisingly there was no evidence.

I made a complaint to the IPCA who decided that counselling the cop was sufficient.

I wrote to you because I have this strange notion that cops should be honest.

I received an unsigned letter purportedly from Inspector Spackman stating that this was no concern for you and that it has been forwarded to the commissioner.

I do find this unusual because I would have thought that the performance and the manner in which the police conduct themselves would be a matter for the minister.

What is significant is the confusion which is created with regards to a trust, the trustees for the Wilson home trust certainly are not those set down by the original deed and those who took it to court for amendment were not the trustees named int he deed either.

It is interesting that the person who asked questions about the process promptly lost his job… it is what we do to whistleblowers in New Zealand.

Comments Off on Wilson home for crippled children .. which trust is what?